Legal Opinion

Albert F. Maurer Co. v. United States

United States Customs Court

Decided December 19, 1961No. Reap. Dec. 10130; Entry No. 13418PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Donlon, Judge:

Men’s overshoes, or low cut rubbers made of natural rubber, product of Brazil and imported at Philadelphia, were appraised on the basis of American selling price, pursuant to a Presidential proclamation promulgated February 1, 1933 (T.D. 46158), under authority of the so-called “flexible” provision, section 336, of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1336).

Plaintiff challenges the appraisement on two principal grounds: First, that the Presidential proclamation (T.D. 46158) is unconstitutional in its application to rubber footwear, manufactured in Brazil, because the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. United States v. WurzbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  3. United States v. ShireySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. United States v. WhitridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  5. United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1911

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. A. Zerkowitz & Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1965
  2. Albert F. Maurer Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  3. E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1971
  4. Weiner v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1963
  5. Academy Broadway Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API